I thought I was the only person on this board who remembered Young and the "Collapse Point" theory. And yes, running a lot...shocking. I sort of think it really all comes down to whether you're doing that enough.
I thought I was the only person on this board who remembered Young and the "Collapse Point" theory. And yes, running a lot...shocking. I sort of think it really all comes down to whether you're doing that enough.
I think the real Sage posts under S. Canaday or something like that. And he would already know because he is an elite runner and coach.
troll? wrote:
Is this the real Sage or a troll?
firm believer in singles, at my best i was 70-80 on about 8 runs per week when i was closer to 80
rjm33 wrote:
fred wrote:If Nobby was posting on this thread, would he say 100 miles a week in singles for Lydiard.
Arthur Lydiard in "Running the Lydiard Way"(1978) also advises an extra easier run in the morning, with even 15 minutes being of benefit.
I still have my original Bible version written on papyrus scrolls.
There is a guy named Ken Young that came up with the concept of 'collapse point' which he determined was about 3X the daily average mileage over the past 6 to 8 weeks of training. For a marathon, a runner would want to have a daily mileage of 9 miles per day to not collapse, with a drastic slowdown at the end of the race. Actually, 10 miles per day would be better to have some margin of error. Even at 140 miles per week, that gives a collapse point of ~60 miles, so everyone should have problems after that and fueling, cramping, etc. become limiting factors.
Ken has a marathon PR of 2:25:46. He is also a very interesting guy.
http://www.runnersworld.com/runners-stories/the-endless-toil-of-the-big-data-guyI remember an old article by Ken. He describes his training for a marathon with few, if any, runs over 15 to 16 miles. He would run 4 runs of around 12.5 miles each at around 6:00 min. mile pace or even faster on the weekend. His theory was that he could increase the intensity and get in a total of 50 miles of quality running on the weekend which would have been impossible in single runs.
There are all kinds of different training methods that work for different people.
Almost all the different methods of training usually involve...running a lot.
Shocking.
The idea of getting in 50 miles of quality over the weekend is an interesting one.
This may be a stretch, but imagine a bar graph of runs per day, where the higher mileage days stick out higher within each week.
Now consider the hypothetical singles-are-better schedule: A single of 22-25 miles (probably the max you'd normally ever run as a single unless you're racing 50Ks or something) would stick out quite a bit, as you'd probably run no more than 14 the day before, and probably more like 8-12 the day after for recovery.
Let's now consider the doubles+KenWeekend strategy. Run 2x12.5 miles at 6min pace on Saturday and Sunday. Now you've got two 24 mile peaks on your graph instead of just one like before.
But that's not the point. Try condensing the x-axis of the bar graph so each bar corresponds to runs does within a 36 hr period. You now have a 50 mile bar, as opposed to a 36 mile bar if following the singles schedule.
You've now done much more running and higher quality within a relatively short (36hr) period of time. That, to me, could be much better endurance training than fixating on the length of single runs alone.
Instead of obsessing over maximizing your miles/run, try maximizing your miles/24-hr period, or 36hr period - that's the strategy? I can definitely see this producing results, and I've tried something very similar in another endurance sport to great effect.
Not the "real" sage or a troll, ;) I just knew we'd get way more responses with this handle. I bet the real sage would be flattered to know you were all willing to help!
Also, yes, he posts under S. Canaday and dont think he's registered, or at least he wasn't at some point.
Great responses so far, honestly I'm surprised almost everyone favored doubles, I thought singles would be more difficult and therefore more beneficial if you didn't get injured.
predetermined outcome wrote:
Flamethrower wrote:Doubles worked better for me. Made me less injury prone and I seemed to recover faster.
Yeah but you also did short useless runs.
PRed in the 5k by 58s and in the HM by over 4min. I'll take that!
Sage Canaday wrote:
Not the "real" sage or a troll, ;) I just knew we'd get way more responses with this handle. I bet the real sage would be flattered to know you were all willing to help!
Also, yes, he posts under S. Canaday and dont think he's registered, or at least he wasn't at some point.
Great responses so far, honestly I'm surprised almost everyone favored doubles, I thought singles would be more difficult and therefore more beneficial if you didn't get injured.
You know how when you take a few days off running, then your first run back you feel a bit "rusty" and need a few miles to hit your stride and feel normal again?
I really hate to call this "muscle memory", but for people that feel like that even when running every day, doubles can help a lot because you're already "warmed up" for your second run of the day.
graceful_admin wrote:
Sage Canaday wrote:Not the "real" sage or a troll, ;) I just knew we'd get way more responses with this handle. I bet the real sage would be flattered to know you were all willing to help!
Also, yes, he posts under S. Canaday and dont think he's registered, or at least he wasn't at some point.
Great responses so far, honestly I'm surprised almost everyone favored doubles, I thought singles would be more difficult and therefore more beneficial if you didn't get injured.
You know how when you take a few days off running, then your first run back you feel a bit "rusty" and need a few miles to hit your stride and feel normal again?
I really hate to call this "muscle memory", but for people that feel like that even when running every day, doubles can help a lot because you're already "warmed up" for your second run of the day.
I will admit though, that you've got to really really care about your times to even try doubling. That's 2x a day you're psychologically immersing yourself in the sport, and it could be too much for people mentally even if it might have otherwise helped their training
graceful_admin wrote:
rjm33 wrote:Arthur Lydiard in "Running the Lydiard Way"(1978) also advises an extra easier run in the morning, with even 15 minutes being of benefit.
I still have my original Bible version written on papyrus scrolls.
There is a guy named Ken Young that came up with the concept of 'collapse point' which he determined was about 3X the daily average mileage over the past 6 to 8 weeks of training. For a marathon, a runner would want to have a daily mileage of 9 miles per day to not collapse, with a drastic slowdown at the end of the race. Actually, 10 miles per day would be better to have some margin of error. Even at 140 miles per week, that gives a collapse point of ~60 miles, so everyone should have problems after that and fueling, cramping, etc. become limiting factors.
Ken has a marathon PR of 2:25:46. He is also a very interesting guy.
http://www.runnersworld.com/runners-stories/the-endless-toil-of-the-big-data-guyI remember an old article by Ken. He describes his training for a marathon with few, if any, runs over 15 to 16 miles. He would run 4 runs of around 12.5 miles each at around 6:00 min. mile pace or even faster on the weekend. His theory was that he could increase the intensity and get in a total of 50 miles of quality running on the weekend which would have been impossible in single runs.
There are all kinds of different training methods that work for different people.
Almost all the different methods of training usually involve...running a lot.
Shocking.
The idea of getting in 50 miles of quality over the weekend is an interesting one.
This may be a stretch, but imagine a bar graph of runs per day, where the higher mileage days stick out higher within each week.
Now consider the hypothetical singles-are-better schedule: A single of 22-25 miles (probably the max you'd normally ever run as a single unless you're racing 50Ks or something) would stick out quite a bit, as you'd probably run no more than 14 the day before, and probably more like 8-12 the day after for recovery.
Let's now consider the doubles+KenWeekend strategy. Run 2x12.5 miles at 6min pace on Saturday and Sunday. Now you've got two 24 mile peaks on your graph instead of just one like before.
But that's not the point. Try condensing the x-axis of the bar graph so each bar corresponds to runs does within a 36 hr period. You now have a 50 mile bar, as opposed to a 36 mile bar if following the singles schedule.
You've now done much more running and higher quality within a relatively short (36hr) period of time. That, to me, could be much better endurance training than fixating on the length of single runs alone.
Instead of obsessing over maximizing your miles/run, try maximizing your miles/24-hr period, or 36hr period - that's the strategy? I can definitely see this producing results, and I've tried something very similar in another endurance sport to great effect.
Hello Admin,
if you look back at the greatest miler of all time, Herb Elliot... he in his peak mileage before sharpening would log 50 miles during Mon-Fri at whatever pace he could get in, then he would go to Portsea and Run a 60 mile quality weekend consisting of workout and long runs. After that he would focus on race pace and closing speed at lower mileage. I wish we knew more hard facts about Portsea but it's all really vague. But the above is, true.
so heavy wrote:
graceful_admin wrote:The idea of getting in 50 miles of quality over the weekend is an interesting one.
This may be a stretch, but imagine a bar graph of runs per day, where the higher mileage days stick out higher within each week.
Now consider the hypothetical singles-are-better schedule: A single of 22-25 miles (probably the max you'd normally ever run as a single unless you're racing 50Ks or something) would stick out quite a bit, as you'd probably run no more than 14 the day before, and probably more like 8-12 the day after for recovery.
Let's now consider the doubles+KenWeekend strategy. Run 2x12.5 miles at 6min pace on Saturday and Sunday. Now you've got two 24 mile peaks on your graph instead of just one like before.
But that's not the point. Try condensing the x-axis of the bar graph so each bar corresponds to runs does within a 36 hr period. You now have a 50 mile bar, as opposed to a 36 mile bar if following the singles schedule.
You've now done much more running and higher quality within a relatively short (36hr) period of time. That, to me, could be much better endurance training than fixating on the length of single runs alone.
Instead of obsessing over maximizing your miles/run, try maximizing your miles/24-hr period, or 36hr period - that's the strategy? I can definitely see this producing results, and I've tried something very similar in another endurance sport to great effect.
Hello Admin,
if you look back at the greatest miler of all time, Herb Elliot... he in his peak mileage before sharpening would log 50 miles during Mon-Fri at whatever pace he could get in, then he would go to Portsea and Run a 60 mile quality weekend consisting of workout and long runs. After that he would focus on race pace and closing speed at lower mileage. I wish we knew more hard facts about Portsea but it's all really vague. But the above is, true.
Cool, thanks for that!
The "singles" people overly simplify things almost to the point of contradiction. You're looking for a big aerobic stressor, right? The singles people would say go run 25 miles and that's your big aerobic workout. What about running 60 miles within 36 hours (Saturday morning until Sunday evening) and then another 60 over the course of the remaining 5 days in the week.
In the big picture, that big weekend is more of a "single" stressor than running 120mpw in doubles with a long+midweek run and then 15-17 miles per day. The latter is actually much more "even" and less modulated (isn't that a Canova term?)
So while singles are superficially larger stressors, running doubles in a wise way will introduce much greater aerobic stimulation with greater modulation and capacity for recovery.
I don't think Ken was doing 50 miles at 6 min pace every weekend. I was thinking about this today and I think that this was an early version of Renato Canova's 'special block'. Then he would recover during the week days.
Ed Whitlock has had amazing performances by running once a day for 2 to 3 hours. He is still running once a day for 1 to 2 hours at age 85. He just broke the age 85 to 89 world record for the mile by 46 seconds, running a 7:18.
Another interesting idea is how little running you can do and maintain your condition. Volume alone is never enough. There is also the element of intensity.
When I was young, I used to run 60 to 80 miles per week for a few months and got in good shape (for me). I very rarely ran 2 times per day. I was also not a world class runner.
I would have many periods of time with very little time for training (due to a large volume and intensity of reading). I would do just 3 workouts per week of around 8 to 12 miles, with intervals on 2 days, and a hard run or race on the third workout.
I could maintain very close to my top condition for 10K or half-marathon on 70 miles per week with just 30 high intensity miles per week. It would last for about 2 months before my base would erode. I would then start getting slower and needed to rebuild my aerobic base at that point.
Imagine the aerobic base that Ed Whitlock has at this point.
Absolutely amazing.
It depends on the training context.
1) If you've been running 70 mpw for a few months already in a single run, you may want to double on recovery purpose, but not directly for improvement.
2) If you ran 50-60 mpw in single runs and want to increase the mileage, doubles make the transition smoother, easier.
3) If you ran 70 mpw in single runs for a while, but you want to change the intensity level, then doubles help more. The second run could be for recovery, while the first one for shorter yet intensive training.
duck runner wrote:
The question wasn't: is "doubles better for me"?
Sany discussion about whether or not it helps you avoid injury/recover better is completely irrelevant.
Assuming you are not getting injured, not overtraining, not failing to recover, etc., ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL, is it better to run doubles or singles?
The science seems to point towards doubles. But I understand the doubles have to be of succifient length (i.e., 30-45 minutes minimum, or at least 4 miles) to make it beneficial. Something about significantly declining returns on aerobic development and HGH production after 45 minutes or so of running.
That means by default, doubles only are worth it if you're doing at a minimum 8 miles a day (2 runs of at least 4 miles a piece) which is at least 56 miles a week. If you have a long run each week, you're looking at a minimum of 60 miles a week before it makes sense to start doing doubles.
Doing 3-4 runs a day of 2-3 miles a piece obviously wouldn't be worth it for the above reason.
I completely disagree that the injury prevention is irrelevant. If you are injured you are not going to be able to perform. So it is relevant.
doubles for time constrained wrote:
So for college students attending the U of C at altitude and doing Wetmore's training and racing schedule, he has determined that generally, singles fit into their schedules better than doubles.
I had all the time in the world in college...
Now, as busy worker with family, it is doubles all the way. I can find one hour to run twice a day, but never have two hours for singles during the work week.
Doubles are for the time constrained.
Which works better? Doubles for me.
Did you run in college?
Classes, running, strength work, homework, sleep, recovery.
Great interview with Steve Cram - says Jakob has no chance of WRs this year
I’m a D2 female runner. Our coach explicitly told us not to visit LetsRun forums.
Guys between age of 45 and 55 do you think about death or does it seem far away
2024 College Track & Field Open Coaching Positions Discussion
adizero Road to Records with Yomif Kejelcha, Agnes Ngetich, Hobbs Kessler & many more is Saturday
Article: Director of BU track and field, cross country steps down following abuse allegations